ARAN KUMAR Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, quashing of the order dated 29.08.2013 (Annexure P-16) has been sought, passed by the respondent No. 1-Commission. The said order is sought to be modified by imposing of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'Act') and also for awarding compensation under Section 19(8)(b), in favour of the petitioner for delayed information and harassment suffered due to the inaction of the respondent No. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has concisely limited his argument to the extent that once a recommendation to issue a suitable written warning to the respondent No. 2 has been issued as to why delay had been caused without any reasonable cause in providing the information, the relief prayed for was automatically also warranted for. He, accordingly, placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Sanjay Hindwan v. State Information Commission and others, 2016 3 RCR(Civ) 223 : AIR 2013 (H.P.) 30. It has been further pointed out that the said view was followed in Smt. Chander Kanta v. The State Information Commission and others, 2016 3 RCR(Civ) 410 by this Court.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that on 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner had sought certain information pertaining to the DPC proposals and proceedings held in the year 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Apart from that final seniority list of Assistants/Superintendent Grade-II of the Department of Employment Generation and Training, Punjab and copy of the roster for the posts of Superintendent Grade-II and Employment Generation and Training Officers and confidential reports were sought. He was informed to deposit the amount of the expenses vide communication dated 10.04.2013 (Annexure P-3), which he sought to deposit vide cash. The same was not accepted and postal order was asked for, against which he protested on 11.04.2013 and deposited the same alongwith the said letter. On the filing of the complaint (Annexure P-6), due to the non-supply of information, the respondent-Commission vide order dated 07.05.2013 directed the District Employment Officer, who was present to supply another set of information as the plea was taken that part of the information had been supplied on 22.04.2013, which had been allegedly not received by the petitioner.

(3.) Keeping in view the non-refusal of the fees in cash, show cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 as to why penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act be not imposed and the case was fixed for final hearing for 03.06.2013, with directions to respondent No. 2-Malkiat Singh Joint Director-the then PIO to be personally present. The said respondent was present on the said date, which would be clear from Annexure R-7. On account of the absence of the petitioner for which he had informed the Commission, the proceedings were adjourned to 25.06.2013 while noting that the information has been sent to the complainant through the registered cover, which was received on 23.04.2013. It would be pertinent to notice that from the order, no such directions were issued that the respondent No. 2-PIO was to be present on the next date. On the said date another opportunity was granted to respondent No. 2 for presenting before the Commission the relevant records pertaining to the remainder information.